Bike lanes won't kill you

[TK4]

Read the article and the comments. What's your take ?

Lorraine Explains: Bike lanes won’t kill you — and they’ll save others | Driving

 

[POWERMAN]

All I know is that I'm paranoid about driving downtown - especially given the speed some of these cyclists are at.
No engine sound, no bells, nothing ....last thing I'd want is to take a life - or worse even , paralyze someone for life.

It would be a lot better if they were subject to the same laws/rules us motorists are.

 

[TK4]

All I know is that I'm paranoid about driving downtown - especially given the speed some of these cyclists are at.
No engine sound, no bells, nothing ....last thing I'd want is to take a life - or worse even , paralyze someone for life.

It would be a lot better if they were subject to the same laws/rules us motorists are.

They are subject to the same laws and rules, its just not enforced like the DUIs on the e-bikes.

 

[Evoex]

It would be a lot better if they were subject to the same laws/rules us motorists are.

They are considered a vehicle under most of the HTA.

If they are going to do bike lanes then it should be done the same in Europe. Take a portion out of the sidewalk and curb off the lane so they are completely separate from traffic. And then those who ride on the road should be required to register/plate/insure

 

[Mad Mike]

Im all for bike lanes. I’m also for rules.

1. Make helmets mandatory. Stats show helmets save lives.
2. plate bicycles. $5 lifetime plates, issue them at bike stores.
3. where bike lanes exist, close road lanes to cyclists (except where necessary for turns)
4. Make more bike lanes by converting sidewalks where possible. Use one side of the street for pedestrians the other for bikes.
5. Step up education and enforcement, particularly stop lights and signs.
6. limit ebikes to 25kg (no ninja 300 lookalikes)

 

[GreyGhost]

Im all for bike lanes. I’m also for rules.

1. Make helmets mandatory. Stats show helmets save lives.
2. plate bicycles. $5 lifetime plates, issue them at bike stores.
3. where bike lanes exist, close road lanes to cyclists (except where necessary for turns)
4. Make more bike lanes by converting sidewalks where possible. Use one side of the street for pedestrians the other for bikes.
5. Step up education and enforcement, particularly stop lights and signs.
6. limit ebikes to 25kg (no ninja 300 lookalikes)

Agree. Except for 25 kg limit. That is too light. You would limit ebikes to quite expensive models. Current limit is way too heavy (120kg). I looked up typical weights for one manufacturer and the lightest ebike they make is 22kg ($1500) and the next lightest is 30% heavier. Probably something around 30 to 40 kg is not unreasonable (longer range ebike necessitates larger battery which drives the weight up quickly). I would also make them pedelec only (ie electric motor supplements you pedalling but will not operate without you pedalling). The pretend pedals just make a mockery of the law as currently written.

 

[Mad Mike]

Agree. Except for 25 kg limit. That is too light. You would limit ebikes to quite expensive models. Current limit is way too heavy (120kg). I looked up typical weights for one manufacturer and the lightest ebike they make is 22kg ($1500) and the next lightest is 30% heavier. Probably something around 30 to 40 kg is not unreasonable (longer range ebike necessitates larger battery which drives the weight up quickly). I would also make them pedelec only (ie electric motor supplements you pedalling but will not operate without you pedalling). The pretend pedals just make a mockery of the law as currently written.

I agree, I took a guess at the weight, my thought was to sensibly limit ebikes to the bicycle form, not the scooter or motorcycle form.

 

[Relax]

Dumb question - when driving next to a bike lane, do you still have to give the cyclist 1 meter of space, or is driving within your lane sufficient? My biggest problem with bicyclists is that they expect drivers to follow the rules, yet they don't follow their own (nor do they even know them - for example they must stay as close to the curb as possible, especially when a car is coming up to pass).

 

[Baggsy]

I don't think Toronto Council is specifically anti-car. I believe at this point they're anti-everything.

Any roads that had decent traffic throughput have either had a bike lane or street car right-of-way put in.

Any bike lanes that I used to ride, had a street car right of way, or a multi car turn lane put in.

TTC stop that was near my house was rerouted, and the number of buses lowered,
so I either had to walk through a back alley and a couple of blocks, or walk to the subway.

It was a lose lose lose situation. A 12 minute drive, 45 minute bike, 60 minute public transit, under 2 hour walk.

 

[backmarkerducati]

There are many unforeseen consequences for some of the bike lanes they are building now. I ride up in Thornhill with a buddy. They have built "elevated" bike lanes (curbed up ie not road level)--I think on Centre Street but I am not sure--and while it seems like a good choice as it separates cyclists from traffic it creates a new problem. All the intersections (stop signed on the side street) are now more dangerous as the cyclists are less noticeable to cars or not expected on the elevated "sidewalk" at the intersections. Riding along at 20 to 30 kph is really dangerous as the cars don't notice the cyclists and just pull right out, rolling stops etc.. Likely OK for commuters in the10 kph range... They are building similar lanes around the Dundas/Bloor/Kipling intersection(s).

Discussed in another thread, but the elevated ones on Queens Quay have the problem that to tourists/pedestrians they just look like more sidewalk. People stand in them or just walk into them without looking. Also very dangerous.

 

[LePhillou]

Oh boy.
Where do we start?

Current infrastructure and design has bike lanes as an afterthought so we have a pretty disconnected effort, which can get a nice "A" for Effort but much lower marks in the other departments.
- bikes lanes on street : good
- physically separated lanes next to the street: great
- separate network that encourages more cycling rather than taking the car : best
We're talking about design that makes cycling take the same amount of time as driving as an example....

I only have hopes for the first 2 in our city. There won't be separate networks coming in soon with our mentality where we don't see different methods of transportation as team work to make getting around more of a breeze but as a "War for space for X". Are there cyclists that ride like douches?! sure, definitely. Should they be convicted, yes, definitely.
In the end the cops see lower risk and they probably don't care as much as cars which are 9 time out of ten more lethal.

Im all for bike lanes. I’m also for rules.

1. Make helmets mandatory. Stats show helmets save lives.
2. plate bicycles. $5 lifetime plates, issue them at bike stores.
3. where bike lanes exist, close road lanes to cyclists (except where necessary for turns)
4. Make more bike lanes by converting sidewalks where possible. Use one side of the street for pedestrians the other for bikes.
5. Step up education and enforcement, particularly stop lights and signs.
6. limit ebikes to 25kg (no ninja 300 lookalikes)

For the bolded one, what does that achieve? If the police are already not enforcing bike rules, do you think they'll spend the time to enforce valid plates on bicycles for such a low revenue? Setting up this system would cost more than the value it would add to the system, it's been tried time and time again by many jurisdictions in the world but never kept.
For number 3, we have to define "bike lanes". That's another thing with our network, since transportation/commuting is such an afterthought so you end up having tons of multi-use paths. Those paths with all the strollers, dog walkers, roller bladers, joggers they're not very efficient. Taking the bike path all the way from my place to downtown is a 28km commute. It starts off with a bit of trail here, a bit of residential street there, etc etc
Taking lakeshore part of the way and then getting back on a the trail is about 23km. 5km on a bike is a lot more time and effort and often times since it's all winding trails (and will be crowded more often than not) its a lot slower flow. So unless you're going to have bicycle as a "recreational activity" you need something more efficient. If you want something that is used by more people, you need something safe. As i've heard several times, "bike lanes should be safe enough that you're not worrying about your 12 y old going by themselves" and we have very few of those in our cities and they're usually all multiuse paths

TL;DR: if we want a cycling infrastructure that allows for different methods of transportation to work together, we have to stop making it an afterthought and have it be integrated within the system rather than just an add-on of low priority.

 

[GreyGhost]

Oh boy.
Where do we start?

Current infrastructure and design has bike lanes as an afterthought so we have a pretty disconnected effort, which can get a nice "A" for Effort but much lower marks in the other departments.
- bikes lanes on street : good
- physically separated lanes next to the street: great
- separate network that encourages more cycling rather than taking the car : best
We're talking about design that makes cycling take the same amount of time as driving as an example....

I only have hopes for the first 2 in our city. There won't be separate networks coming in soon with our mentality where we don't see different methods of transportation as team work to make getting around more of a breeze but as a "War for space for X". Are there cyclists that ride like douches?! sure, definitely. Should they be convicted, yes, definitely.
In the end the cops see lower risk and they probably don't care as much as cars which are 9 time out of ten more lethal.


For the bolded one, what does that achieve? If the police are already not enforcing bike rules, do you think they'll spend the time to enforce valid plates on bicycles for such a low revenue? Setting up this system would cost more than the value it would add to the system, it's been tried time and time again by many jurisdictions in the world but never kept.
For number 3, we have to define "bike lanes". That's another thing with our network, since transportation/commuting is such an afterthought so you end up having tons of multi-use paths. Those paths with all the strollers, dog walkers, roller bladers, joggers they're not very efficient. Taking the bike path all the way from my place to downtown is a 28km commute. It starts off with a bit of trail here, a bit of residential street there, etc etc
Taking lakeshore part of the way and then getting back on a the trail is about 23km. 5km on a bike is a lot more time and effort and often times since it's all winding trails (and will be crowded more often than not) its a lot slower flow. So unless you're going to have bicycle as a "recreational activity" you need something more efficient. If you want something that is used by more people, you need something safe. As i've heard several times, "bike lanes should be safe enough that you're not worrying about your 12 y old going by themselves" and we have very few of those in our cities and they're usually all multiuse paths

TL;DR: if we want a cycling infrastructure that allows for different methods of transportation to work together, we have to stop making it an afterthought and have it be integrated within the system rather than just an add-on of low priority.

I think he wanted plates so people can call in and identify the dbag cyclists. Same as reporting bad drivers. Doesn't get you a ticket, but gets you typed in the computer so if a cop is talking to you for another reason and sees a page of complaints, you've already used up your warnings.

Multi-use paths are a disaster for efficient travel. Stupid knobs automatically spread out and occupy all available space (or my favorite is person on one side of the path and dog off the other side with extend-a-leash across the path). For multi-use path to work, you need a 2' wide walking strip marked off on one side and then bike lanes. Cops/by-law would need to enforce walking/standing on the bike path (which won't happen).

 

[Mad Mike]

Those raised sections in many places are multi use.

Sidewalks are the most underused infrastructure in a city, it makes a lot is sense to repurpose sidewalks or make the shared use. This is a big benefit whereit’s unsafe or not practical for street level bike lanes. Markham does this in stretches that are >50kmh.

I think the elevated lanes you are speaking of might be some of the shared use sidewalks. If they don’t rejoin the street as a bike lane at the intersection a cyclist is expected to treat it as a pedestrian crossing.

 

[d4rktrooper788]

During the pandemic the city has gone full steam ahead with the bike lanes on Bloor in the west-end, and it's been a complete gong-show.

1. Bloor is effectively one lane each way now.
2. Right turn on red has been heavily restricted, causing traffic jams because everyone has to wait behind someone waiting to turn right when there are pedestrians.
3. Because the left turn lanes are small, anytime a bus needs to turn left (like from Bloor onto Keele) the entire road is blocked.
4. Cyclists think that their dedicated lane is their own personal speedway, and often do not stop or look for pedestrians.

All for something that will be unused 5 months of the year. One thing I don't understand: why don't we put more bike lanes on side streets? Why do they always have to be on main arteries? It seems pointless to have cyclists sharing the road with cars and trucks when we could just redirect cyclist traffic to sidestreets.

 

[backmarkerducati]

Those raised sections in many places are multi use.

Sidewalks are the most underused infrastructure in a city, it makes a lot is sense to repurpose sidewalks or make the shared use. This is a big benefit whereit’s unsafe or not practical for street level bike lanes. Markham does this in stretches that are >50kmh.

I think the elevated lanes you are speaking of might be some of the shared use sidewalks. If they don’t rejoin the street as a bike lane at the intersection a cyclist is expected to treat it as a pedestrian crossing.

The ones I am referring to in my post are dedicated bike lanes and are marked as such. Sidewalks are also on the same street.

 

[GreyGhost]

All for something that will be unused 5 months of the year. One thing I don't understand: why don't we put more bike lanes on side streets? Why do they always have to be on main arteries? It seems pointless to have cyclists sharing the road with cars and trucks when we could just redirect cyclist traffic to sidestreets.

I 100% agree. Putting them on main thoroughfares is politics. For actual transportation purposes it makes a hell of a lot more sense to build a cycling network offset slightly (eg a road north or south of a main east-west thoroughfair). Much less pedestrian traffic, much less vehicle traffic. Even better if the road has sidewalks on both sides, burn one and make it a bike path and the other side is for walking. Easy peasy.

You can tell bike lanes are mostly about politics when they spent all the money on the sherbourne st bike lanes (and then removing them). Parliament already had functional bike lanes and less vehicle traffic and was a block away. Not every block needs a bike lane. Just complete stupidity.

 

[LePhillou]

During the pandemic the city has gone full steam ahead with the bike lanes on Bloor in the west-end, and it's been a complete gong-show.

1. Bloor is effectively one lane each way now.
2. Right turn on red has been heavily restricted, causing traffic jams because everyone has to wait behind someone waiting to turn right when there are pedestrians.
3. Because the left turn lanes are small, anytime a bus needs to turn left (like from Bloor onto Keele) the entire road is blocked.
4. Cyclists think that their dedicated lane is their own personal speedway, and often do not stop or look for pedestrians.

All for something that will be unused 5 months of the year. One thing I don't understand: why don't we put more bike lanes on side streets? Why do they always have to be on main arteries? It seems pointless to have cyclists sharing the road with cars and trucks when we could just redirect cyclist traffic to sidestreets.

Once again, bike infrastructure just added on top, praying for it to work well...

They have to build a system! If it was planned out properly you could probably have a proper system of sidestreets where traffic is limited to local traffic, have very little to no stops along the way (maybe more roundabouts instead of stop signs, i see a lot more of those in newer subdivisions in the burbs) planned out in a way that makes traveling through that network efficient and safe for cyclists, while leaving the major roads to cars. Or vice versa.
But trying to cram everyone together without a proper full redesign is waiting for a disaster to happen.

I could imagine having certain main streets be mainly transit and cycling and other ones being prioritized for cars and that way you limit car's interactions with transit or bicycles or even pedestrians and then get better flow. But as Ghost just said, a lot of it is politics and appeasing a certain segment of voters while not pissing off the other segment of voters

 

[Mad Mike]

During the pandemic the city has gone full steam ahead with the bike lanes on Bloor in the west-end, and it's been a complete gong-show.

1. Bloor is effectively one lane each way now.
2. Right turn on red has been heavily restricted, causing traffic jams because everyone has to wait behind someone waiting to turn right when there are pedestrians.
3. Because the left turn lanes are small, anytime a bus needs to turn left (like from Bloor onto Keele) the entire road is blocked.
4. Cyclists think that their dedicated lane is their own personal speedway, and often do not stop or look for pedestrians.

All for something that will be unused 5 months of the year. One thing I don't understand: why don't we put more bike lanes on side streets? Why do they always have to be on main arteries? It seems pointless to have cyclists sharing the road with cars and trucks when we could just redirect cyclist traffic to sidestreets.

Some good points.

I don’t see why right-on-red would be restricted.

I think changing alternating arteries to 1-way thru the urban core could help with flow. It can refuse lights and increase lane counts.

You are right, some cyclists abuse their privileges. For years advocates have demanded hand off approach to enforcement, citing it as a detriment to developing cycling. Cycling is here now, in big numbers - it’s time to follow rules, possibly make a few more to support safety and cost of cycling infrastructure.

 

[backmarkerducati]

I 100% agree. Putting them on main thoroughfares is politics. For actual transportation purposes it makes a hell of a lot more sense to build a cycling network offset slightly (eg a road north or south of a main east-west thoroughfair). Much less pedestrian traffic, much less vehicle traffic. Even better if the road has sidewalks on both sides, burn one and make it a bike path and the other side is for walking. Easy peasy.

You can tell bike lanes are mostly about politics when they spent all the money on the sherbourne st bike lanes (and then removing them). Parliament already had functional bike lanes and less vehicle traffic and was a block away. Not every block needs a bike lane. Just complete stupidity.

During the pandemic the city has gone full steam ahead with the bike lanes on Bloor in the west-end, and it's been a complete gong-show.

1. Bloor is effectively one lane each way now.
2. Right turn on red has been heavily restricted, causing traffic jams because everyone has to wait behind someone waiting to turn right when there are pedestrians.
3. Because the left turn lanes are small, anytime a bus needs to turn left (like from Bloor onto Keele) the entire road is blocked.
4. Cyclists think that their dedicated lane is their own personal speedway, and often do not stop or look for pedestrians.

All for something that will be unused 5 months of the year. One thing I don't understand: why don't we put more bike lanes on side streets? Why do they always have to be on main arteries? It seems pointless to have cyclists sharing the road with cars and trucks when we could just redirect cyclist traffic to sidestreets.

The problem in Toronto is east-west, specially around downtown. The only streets that go through are the busy majors, King, Queen, Dundas, College, Bloor. So either the bike lanes become peicemeal on side streets or they end up on a busy major. There are some of the smaller streets but it never flowed well commuting wise.

North-south is much easier as the busy majors are Jarvis, Yonge, University.... there are many other options. The stupid one was actually Jarvis when there was a set of lanes on Sherbourne one "major" over (really close and way less busy). Bike lanes are still on Sherbourne.

 

[GreyGhost]

The problem in Toronto is east-west, specially around downtown. The only streets that go through are the busy majors, King, Queen, Dundas, College, Bloor. So either the bike lanes become peicemeal on side streets or they end up on a busy major. There are some of the smaller streets but it never flowed well commuting wise.

North-south is much easier as the busy majors are Jarvis, Yonge, University.... there are many other options. The stupid one was actually Jarvis when there was a set of lanes on Sherbourne one "major" over (really close and way less busy). Bike lanes are still on Sherbourne.

Sorry, was off by a block on my stupid bike lane project, you're right.

King is already useless for cars so that would make sense as a transit/bike corridor.